Jump to content

Australian journalist Alan Morison returns to Thailand to fight criminal defamation charges


Recommended Posts

Posted

I have a feeling that the news of his return will not be welcomed by the prosecutors. A trial in absentia would involve much less public interest.

Good for you Mr Morison.

I shal be reporting myself in for attitude adjustment later today.

Yes, the unwanted glare of the international media, again.

  • Like 2
Posted

Pretty serious accusations he made and surely he would not return if he did not have proof, I think some will be wishing he was not coming back

Please correct me if I'm wrong but, I believe he put some parts of a Reuters article about the human trafficking issue on the online news.

So now begs the question, How's the charges coming along against Reuters for the very same thing? or even if there is one? maybe that dog is to big and bites back?

Another question, hasn't there been a number of police, military navy and officials as well as civilians been caught just recently? and if so then there you have it,

Posted

I admire this man's convictions, he has more character, morals and courage in one of his little toenails than the famous desert nomad has in his entire body.

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)

The bloke is a media parasite and deserves all he gets. Just look at the way he replies to readers on his news feed who may have different opinions....you either agree with his biased controversial reporting or get verbally abused for having an alternative opinion. Karma is a b1tch Mr Morison!!!

Edited by Rickster
Posted

Pretty serious accusations he made and surely he would not return if he did not have proof, I think some will be wishing he was not coming back

Please correct me if I'm wrong but, I believe he put some parts of a Reuters article about the human trafficking issue on the online news.

So now begs the question, How's the charges coming along against Reuters for the very same thing? or even if there is one? maybe that dog is to big and bites back?

Another question, hasn't there been a number of police, military navy and officials as well as civilians been caught just recently? and if so then there you have it,

He quoted a paragraph of Reuters article. The Reuters gave a balanced story. When the police charged him, he started dissing the navy on a almost daily basis.

Posted

Egypt. Military overthrow lawfully elected government in coup. Imprison Al Jazeera journalists on flimsy charges one of whom is an Australian. Cue global outrage and massive bad publicity with journalists in many countries focusing on faults and negative behavior of self-appointed new military ruler.

Sound familiar? Car crash coming.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

Pretty serious accusations he made and surely he would not return if he did not have proof, I think some will be wishing he was not coming back

I don't understand why people don't understand this case. The truth and proof are not at issue. If he proves that everything he wrote down to the dotted i's were absolutely and completely true, it would have nothing to do with the charges.

He and his Phuketwan co-worker are charged with defaming the Royal Thai Navy. The charge is they made the Navy and its men look bad. The court will decide if they did, or didn't. There will be allegations and testimony both ways. But the truth of what they wrote is not relevant, and won't be admitted or considered as direct evidence. It MIGHT be relevant as a mitigating circumstance.

This is essentially the same law that Britain has. Truth is not a defence, and usually is not even argued. There is only one vital difference, in that in Britain it's a civil matter and penalties are only huge damages, not jail sentences. Other than that, they're quite similar and I'm amazed that not even British people seem to understand what's going on in this defamation/libel case.

He quoted a paragraph of Reuters article. The Reuters gave a balanced story. When the police charged him, he started dissing the navy on a almost daily basis.

You should have stopped after your first, correct sentence. The rest of it is nonsense. The last sentence is not only wrong but (irony alert) arguably libelous defamation.

Edited by wandasloan
  • Like 2
Posted
dragonfly94, on 06 Feb 2015 - 14:02, said:

Pretty serious accusations he made and surely he would not return if he did not have proof, I think some will be wishing he was not coming back

You need to FOLLOW the whole story, all he, and his blog, did was REPRINT part of an article published by Reuters. Reuters has not been charged. Although Alan can be a pain in the arse, criticises many readers, especially if they have different views to his, often with bitter, snide remarks, and not publishing replies that he doesn't agree with, I do hope the charges are dropped. Mmmm, maybe a public caning wouldn't go astray.

Posted (edited)

Pretty serious accusations he made and surely he would not return if he did not have proof, I think some will be wishing he was not coming back

I don't understand why people don't understand this case. The truth and proof are not at issue. If he proves that everything he wrote down to the dotted i's were absolutely and completely true, it would have nothing to do with the charges.

He and his Phuketwan co-worker are charged with defaming the Royal Thai Navy. The charge is they made the Navy and its men look bad. The court will decide if they did, or didn't. There will be allegations and testimony both ways. But the truth of what they wrote is not relevant, and won't be admitted or considered as direct evidence. It MIGHT be relevant as a mitigating circumstance.

This is essentially the same law that Britain has. Truth is not a defence, and usually is not even argued. There is only one vital difference, in that in Britain it's a civil matter and penalties are only huge damages, not jail sentences. Other than that, they're quite similar and I'm amazed that not even British people seem to understand what's going on in this defamation/libel case.

I don't think that's correct. Are you sure that the truth isn't a defence in UK (English) law?

From Wikipedia:

"...English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual (or individuals; note that under English law companies are legal persons, and may bring suit for defamation) in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. Allowable defences are justification (i.e. the truth of the statement), fair comment (i.e., whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (i.e., whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest)..."

"...A claim of defamation is defeated if the defendant proves that the statement was true...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law

Edited by katana
  • Like 2
Posted

I've learned not to pull the lion's tail. Yes, he was in a position to change things, and good on him, but for most, it just not worth it.

He's a cantankerous old fart, but in this case, it's a good fight. This situation is horrible and the Thais aren't helping and people are making money.

The other thing you gotta remember is, a bullet is 100 baht here. Stay out of Thai business.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...